I was told this is a quite delicate subject and I never wrote about it before, probably because of the possibly polarizing view I have. The reason I decided to do it was because of what happened in the subway on my way home today. I overheard a conversation of two girls of approximately my age chatting about first an upcoming exam and second about the christian believes of the one girl. The other one was an atheist, agnostic or at least seemed not so totally convinced of the whole God thing like her friend. At one point the believer said (not word-by-word): "It was so beautiful, I experienced God last night and he told me that everything will be alright, that I'll pass the exam and that someday go to heaven if I keep up my faith." It would all have been fine if I didn't accidentally laugh.* They looked up and the other girl said: "What's the matter, are you making fun of her religion?" Not wanting to start a debate I said "No, I'm sorry." But she insisted "No, I'm curious, why did you laugh?"
Well, classic Christians believe in a supernatural almighty God which is a logically impossible concept, claim that he is an omniscient observer meaning that the future is already determined, yet think they have to pray in order to fulfill his will although this cannot possibly change anything and I am not allowed to make fun of that? It's technically like you were not allowed to make fun of me believing bats lay eggs. The only difference is that the bat-eggs are not as much an influential view.
However this does not mean that I think there is definitely no God or supernatural power or whatever you like to call it. It just means that I am a rather sceptical human being and find this particular concept (which I described above) extremely counter-logical and since there is no proof for Gods existence while nonexistence is unprovable I accept that we will never find out. One could also state the problem in a different way. Whether or not there is a God is rather irrelevant in itself. What's really relevant is what implications this would have. Since I don't think I as a person would need to change depending on which is actually true (while implying there is no such thing as almightiness and omniscience) it does not really matter. And that's essentially this believe is about: oneself. I totally understand why people believe for example as a coping mechanism in difficult times or because it brightens their lives in general. And they shall believe if they do desire so. I don't think less of them if they do. It only gets annoying when they bring it up all the time. Hell, you would get annoyed too if I talked about bat-eggs all day.
What is totally unacceptable is to enforce your believes on others. This does not only happen in extremely religious cultures like the Arabian countries. I don't mean the kind way like before an exam somebody says "I pray for you." In the eyes of a non-believer this is not going to help at all, but at least it's a nice gesture in their eyes and should be treated as one. I am talking about education in schools in the United States. This could never be an geography test in an European country. The perfect example of good education is this. Reasoning or creative problem solving is not really taught in European schools either. Sadly most teachers are just terrible at their job or have to stick to weird study plans. Still I quite often wonder how people can be so naive repeating every bullshit they ever heard regardless of how obscure it sounds. Having said this, what really bothers me is that for example women have to wear a headscarf, whether they like or not or even get beaten and this is acceptable because this one book tells you it is? In reality it is more a stupid cultural habit. I get really angry whenever people say it cannot be changed because their God or prophet says its supposed to be this way. Treat it as a tradition and let people opt out if they think it's stupid. Don't blame your imaginary friend.
*I didn't and the rest is just a thought process; but could totally have happened.
I find it highly doubtful that God goes around re-assuring people about petty things like passing exams. You pass if you know the material. I find it always very silly when people actually believe that God affects things like whether or not you make it to the bus on time.
On November 14 2012 21:10 Poltergeist- wrote: I find it highly doubtful that God goes around re-assuring people about petty things like passing exams. You pass if you know the material. I find it always very silly when people actually believe that God affects things like whether or not you make it to the bus on time.
What about "God helps those who help themselves?" Is that the message you're trying to convey here?
I apologize that I don't know much about religion because I am an atheist. :/
The easy way out would be to say "I just had a funny thought, what did your friend even say?" Then turn it back on them with something like "The world doesn't revolve around you guys you know" something along those lines.
Unless of course you were staring at them, in which case I will ask why you would be doing that in the first place...
On November 14 2012 21:10 Poltergeist- wrote: I find it highly doubtful that God goes around re-assuring people about petty things like passing exams. You pass if you know the material. I find it always very silly when people actually believe that God affects things like whether or not you make it to the bus on time.
What about "God helps those who help themselves?" Is that the message you're trying to convey here?
I apologize that I don't know much about religion because I am an atheist. :/
"God helps those who helps themselves"
It's a funny line, because if you had to write a book report on the Bible, and sum it up in 1 phrase, there is no single phrase that more effectively gets the entire premise wrong.
God helps those who help themselves, that is the distilled, most pure and essential, opposite of the entire narrative of the book.
It would also be a rather cruel god, siding only with those who need it leasts. Kind of like starting a charity to donate 50 dollar steaks to westerners.
---------
Other than that, religion is an individual's choice. People have the right to be wrong.
Faith is one of the worst attributes that is perceived as good, whilst being bad. A person of faith is simply a gullible person. There is literally nothing good about being willing to accept something without evidence, and it is a mindset that should go the way of the dinosaurs.
That the more practical and totalitarian dangers of religion must be fought is obvious, but I can't be too occupied with how some people choose to waste their time and thought.
I think it speaks of both our arrogance as people, in believing that the creator of the universe is watching over our exams, and of our fear, that we still crave the fatherly hand to guide us when we are well beyond that age.
It is that slavish attitude that I find repugnant, but again everyone may believe as they like, as is their right as individuals.
There are people living in slavery, getting raped every day, starving to death, living under oppression, being hunted for what they were born as. What does God say to those people? That they're going to suffer for their entire lives, that no one will help them (not even he, despite having the power to do so), and that they might as well kill themselves, because they'll go to heaven which will be much better than their lives? What does he say to people who don't have exams because they can never go to school, because they had the bad luck of being born as a poor female in a middle eastern country?
But her exam? Yeah, God tells her she's gonna pass it, it's all good bro.
So fucking arrogant. To assume that there is a god, and that he is helping you, when there are other people who need help way more than you ever will, and who aren't getting any. Or at least not enough, considering the state of their lives.
Oh my god that geography test... Someone's gotta be fired for that. Doesn't matter if you're a private Christian school, your job is to educate students on scientific fact, not creationism bullshit.
On November 14 2012 22:34 vOdToasT wrote: That they're going to suffer for their entire lives, that no one will help them (not even he, despite having the power to do so), and that they might as well kill themselves, because they'll go to heaven which will be much better than their lives?.
Especially as suicide as a a way to opt out is punished with sent to hell or thelike in most religions. Which is ridiculous of course. And if it's his will and he is just a mean prick then why the hell should I pray to him?
On November 14 2012 21:10 Poltergeist- wrote: Faith is one of the worst attributes that is perceived as good, whilst being bad. A person of faith is simply a gullible person. There is literally nothing good about being willing to accept something without evidence, and it is a mindset that should go the way of the dinosaurs.
I don't agree. You have to believe in some things. You as a single person cannot possibly check every claim for proof. If a friend says the bus will arrive in seven minutes I will "put faith" in him. But I agree that the more ridiculous the claim is the more you should drawn towards finding proof.
Just curious... what is the point of this blog? To bash religion? People have their beliefs and you have your's. Just because you don't agree with her religion doesn't give you the right to laugh at her no matter how stupid you think it is. I could understand if this girl in your little story was trying to push her religion on you, but she wasn't.
@OP if you really care http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meditations_on_First_Philosophy edit: not that I can agree with descartes but if you want to start talking "logical arguments for god" you will "step on less toes" if you have done a bit more research. edit #2 or just, back up your arguments more.
On November 14 2012 22:34 vOdToasT wrote: There are people living in slavery, getting raped every day, starving to death, living under oppression, being hunted for what they were born as. What does God say to those people? That they're going to suffer for their entire lives, that no one will help them (not even he, despite having the power to do so), and that they might as well kill themselves, because they'll go to heaven which will be much better than their lives? What does he say to people who don't have exams because they can never go to school, because they had the bad luck of being born as a poor female in a middle eastern country?
But her exam? Yeah, God tells her she's gonna pass it, it's all good bro.
So fucking arrogant. To assume that there is a god, and that he is helping you, when there are other people who need help way more than you ever will, and who aren't getting any. Or at least not enough, considering the state of their lives.
well, theres Mother Teresa. what do you do to help those problems. I do nothing, but are you in the right to take the dignity of many others through your own belief system? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother_Theresa
On November 14 2012 20:31 Cyberonic wrote: What is totally unacceptable is to enforce your believes on others. This does not only happen in extremely religious cultures like the Arabian countries. I don't mean the kind way like before an exam somebody says "I pray for you." In the eyes of a non-believer this is not going to help at all, but at least it's a nice gesture in their eyes and should be treated as one. I am talking about education in schools in the United States. This could never be an geography test in an European country. The perfect example of good education is this. Reasoning or creative problem solving is not really taught in European schools either. Sadly most teachers are just terrible at their job or have to stick to weird study plans. Still I quite often wonder how people can be so naive repeating every bullshit they ever heard regardless of how obscure it sounds. Having said this, what really bothers me is that for example women have to wear a headscarf, whether they like or not or even get beaten and this is acceptable because this one book tells you it is? In reality it is more a stupid cultural habit. I get really angry whenever people say it cannot be changed because their God or prophet says its supposed to be this way. Treat it as a tradition and let people opt out if they think it's stupid. Don't blame your imaginary friend.
Just a little food for thought... Aren't you trying to impose your beliefs (that it's not okay to impose beliefs) on others? Further, as society don't we (through laws) impose beliefs on each other all the time? Like women needing to wear shirts in public or they get punished? (Yes, that's a far less extreme comparison to some Middle-Eastern laws but still on the same line of thought.)
@ vOdToasT: Assuming there was an omnipotent God, wouldn't it be dumb to assume He/She didn't care about your first world problems?
On November 14 2012 22:34 vOdToasT wrote: There are people living in slavery, getting raped every day, starving to death, living under oppression, being hunted for what they were born as. What does God say to those people? That they're going to suffer for their entire lives, that no one will help them (not even he, despite having the power to do so), and that they might as well kill themselves, because they'll go to heaven which will be much better than their lives? What does he say to people who don't have exams because they can never go to school, because they had the bad luck of being born as a poor female in a middle eastern country?
But her exam? Yeah, God tells her she's gonna pass it, it's all good bro.
So fucking arrogant. To assume that there is a god, and that he is helping you, when there are other people who need help way more than you ever will, and who aren't getting any. Or at least not enough, considering the state of their lives.
If you took the time to study the Bible and God with an open mind you would discover there are indeed answers to these questions.
On November 14 2012 22:34 vOdToasT wrote: There are people living in slavery, getting raped every day, starving to death, living under oppression, being hunted for what they were born as. What does God say to those people? That they're going to suffer for their entire lives, that no one will help them (not even he, despite having the power to do so), and that they might as well kill themselves, because they'll go to heaven which will be much better than their lives? What does he say to people who don't have exams because they can never go to school, because they had the bad luck of being born as a poor female in a middle eastern country?
But her exam? Yeah, God tells her she's gonna pass it, it's all good bro.
So fucking arrogant. To assume that there is a god, and that he is helping you, when there are other people who need help way more than you ever will, and who aren't getting any. Or at least not enough, considering the state of their lives.
If you took the time to study the Bible and God with an open mind you would discover there are indeed answers to these questions.
- These answers however are unsatisfactory to say the least... Not to mention, not even remotely helpful to all the people living in absolute misery. - I'd say, it's debatable whether you need an open mind or rather circular logic and short-sightedness to find those answers.
On November 14 2012 22:34 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote: Oh my god that geography test... Someone's gotta be fired for that. Doesn't matter if you're a private Christian school, your job is to educate students on scientific fact, not creationism bullshit.
This times a thousand. As a teacher myself, I couldn't stop staring at that picture. What the hell is wrong with these people?! Totally unacceptable. And worst of all, it destroys the image we have of Americans in general. Terrible.
On November 14 2012 22:34 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote: Oh my god that geography test... Someone's gotta be fired for that. Doesn't matter if you're a private Christian school, your job is to educate students on scientific fact, not creationism bullshit.
This times a thousand. As a teacher myself, I couldn't stop staring at that picture. What the hell is wrong with these people?! Totally unacceptable. And worst of all, it destroys the image we have of Americans in general. Terrible.
Really? It only reinforces my opinion of Americans.
On November 14 2012 22:34 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote: Oh my god that geography test... Someone's gotta be fired for that. Doesn't matter if you're a private Christian school, your job is to educate students on scientific fact, not creationism bullshit.
I graduated from a private Catholic school (a jesuit one, none the less) AND a private Catholic university (run by the Opus Dei...) And this post speaks PURE TRUTH!
I got baptized, made my 1st communion and confirmation, but I grew to not believing in the catholic's view of God. I'm an agnostic.
During my school days I was sick of the religion contaminating every aspect of teaching, every aspect of learning; God had to be involved in EVERY SINGLE THING. Come on, we're in SCHOOL. Even in chemistry class God was present. In the physics lab, same story. Let's get past the creationism bullshit and get SCIENTIFIC FACTS AND METHOD on the way, but let's not allow religion to keep poluting the minds of impressionable children, most times people without the ability to question the teachings of their masters. I luckily always questioned EVERYTHING. I never sat down in contempt, believing every word my teachers said. But it's not the same for everyone, and most people never get to the questioning stage... So they are stuck with poluted teachings. And that sucks ASS.
But being smug about not believing in anything is kind of empty in itself don't you think? I mean, believing that there's bigger powers at work was being more helpful to this girl than your logical assessment of her faith. Arguing about how they're wrong could be perceived as "to enforce your believes on others" as well.
On November 15 2012 03:47 Saechiis wrote: But being smug about not believing in anything is kind of empty in itself don't you think? I mean, believing that there's bigger powers at work was being more helpful to this girl than your logical assessment of her faith. Arguing about how they're wrong could be perceived as "to enforce your believes on others" as well.
He is just ranting on the internet, he's forcing nobody to believe in anything. He is however, completely right. It's alright to laugh at other people's stupidity.
I graduated from a private Catholic school (a jesuit one, none the less) AND a private Catholic university (run by the Opus Dei...) And this post speaks PURE TRUTH!
I got baptized, made my 1st communion and confirmation, but I grew to not believing in the catholic's view of God. I'm an agnostic.
During my school days I was sick of the religion contaminating every aspect of teaching, every aspect of learning; God had to be involved in EVERY SINGLE THING. Come on, we're in SCHOOL. Even in chemistry class God was present. In the physics lab, same story. Let's get past the creationism bullshit and get SCIENTIFIC FACTS AND METHOD on the way, but let's not allow religion to keep poluting the minds of impressionable children, most times people without the ability to question the teachings of their masters. I luckily always questioned EVERYTHING. I never sat down in contempt, believing every word my teachers said. But it's not the same for everyone, and most people never get to the questioning stage... So they are stuck with poluted teachings. And that sucks ASS.
Yeah I agree with this on its own.its not fair that people are given such mind altering information at a tender age, to the point where potentially superior study subjects are not studied.
The OP is not trying to make an educationsystem though. He is laughing at people for their beliefs under the guise of some logician. Something about that strikes me as bad form.
I agree completely. Mixing science and religion seems harmful to me too. Teaching children at a tender age that things which are not based in fact are based in fact is not defencible in my opinion.
The OP is not trying to make an education system, however. He is trying to laugh down on the beliefs of others under the guise of some logician. That seems rude to me, and something about it strikes me as bad form.
No seriously, what's wrong with laughing at someone's idiocy? People laugh all the time when other people do dumb shit. And if you read the OP well enough you would've seen that he actually didn't laugh.
On November 15 2012 04:06 Recognizable wrote: No seriously, what's wrong with laughing at someone's idiocy? People laugh all the time when other people do dumb shit. And if you read the OP well enough you would've seen that he actually didn't laugh.
haha, yeah i agree, but who are you to assume that what is true for you is true for another? Maybe someone has a relationship with some deity and you do not understand it. Why do you even care?
On November 15 2012 04:06 Recognizable wrote: No seriously, what's wrong with laughing at someone's idiocy? People laugh all the time when other people do dumb shit. And if you read the OP well enough you would've seen that he actually didn't laugh.
haha, yeah i agree, but who are you to assume that what is true for you is true for another? Maybe someone has a relationship with some deity and you do not understand it. Why do you even care?
When did I ever say anything about truth. I do understand fictional relationships, I used to have an imaginary friend when I was 8 or 10. It all felt very real. People, still laughed at me tho. I remember my parents finding it especially hilarious.
@OP if you really care http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meditations_on_First_Philosophy edit: not that I can agree with descartes but if you want to start talking "logical arguments for god" you will "step on less toes" if you have done a bit more research. edit #2 or just, back up your arguments more.
On November 15 2012 04:06 Recognizable wrote: No seriously, what's wrong with laughing at someone's idiocy? People laugh all the time when other people do dumb shit. And if you read the OP well enough you would've seen that he actually didn't laugh.
haha, yeah i agree, but who are you to assume that what is true for you is true for another? Maybe someone has a relationship with some deity and you do not understand it. Why do you even care?
When did I ever say anything about truth. I do understand fictional relationships, I used to have an imaginary friend when I was 8 or 10. It all felt very real. People, still laughed at me tho. I remember my parents finding it especially hilarious.
@OP if you really care http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meditations_on_First_Philosophy edit: not that I can agree with descartes but if you want to start talking "logical arguments for god" you will "step on less toes" if you have done a bit more research. edit #2 or just, back up your arguments more.
point taken about the humour of people having imaginary friends :D
Sometimes it is not what you say, but rather its what what you say assumes you already know. I can easily say anything you ever thought you knew is false. I have no backing for this because that requires a metaphysic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysic) + Show Spoiler +
the branch of philosophy that treats of first principles, includes ontology and cosmology, and is intimately connected with epistemology.
Where the hell did you start from in other words to clearly define reality. We are after all just minds looking for patterns and such like.
On November 15 2012 03:47 Saechiis wrote: But being smug about not believing in anything is kind of empty in itself don't you think? I mean, believing that there's bigger powers at work was being more helpful to this girl than your logical assessment of her faith. Arguing about how they're wrong could be perceived as "to enforce your believes on others" as well.
He is just ranting on the internet, he's forcing nobody to believe in anything. He is however, completely right. It's alright to laugh at other people's stupidity.
On November 15 2012 05:13 OmniEulogy wrote: I've never thought about it much. I just think of Pascal and it's enough for me. I don't really lose sleep over it.
you know what, that's actually a good point. Sometimes i toy around with ideas of gods and the universe's meaning, but sometimes i feel like its actually just a small part of my experience and i act like i care more than i care.
On November 15 2012 04:30 Recognizable wrote: Well. I guess the argument ends here then.
In short, people who are just as hungry for answers as you are, if not hungrier, are finding that what you thought was true is a huge assumption.
FYI, i intend to read your russel. thanks for the lead.
No, there is just no point in arguing anymore.
I've never thought about it much. I just think of Pascal and it's enough for me. I don't really lose sleep over it.
I wouldn't do that if I were you. What if you are following the "wrong" "god" and you will be punished in hell because of following the wrong god rather than being truly apathatic about all the gods?!
On November 15 2012 04:06 Recognizable wrote: No seriously, what's wrong with laughing at someone's idiocy? People laugh all the time when other people do dumb shit. And if you read the OP well enough you would've seen that he actually didn't laugh.
butting into someone's conversation = rude
laughing at someone trying to tell you that stuff = not
On November 15 2012 04:06 Recognizable wrote: No seriously, what's wrong with laughing at someone's idiocy? People laugh all the time when other people do dumb shit. And if you read the OP well enough you would've seen that he actually didn't laugh.
butting into someone's conversation = rude
laughing at someone trying to tell you that stuff = not
You can't just compare these two things for one, and second I never said anywhere it wasn't rude to laugh at people's idiocy. In some contexts it might be, in some it might not.
In short, people who are just as hungry for answers as you are, if not hungrier, are finding that what you thought was true is a huge assumption.
FYI, i intend to read your russel. thanks for the lead.
I'll share my exam experience as a Christian, praying to God:
So, about 2 years ago I was reading for an Exphil exam. I had been preparing for quite some time, though had not read trough the whole curriculum cause I found some parts quite hard and boring, and I'm quite lazy and get easily distracted. Anyway, The exam consists of 2 parts. Part 1, chose between two questions with an longer answer. Part 2, chose 3 out of 5 smaller questions. Both parts has to be passed in order to pass the exam. During the day before the exam I was reading in the evening, and thought to myself "I probably wont get this on the exam, It wont help anything if I read this. I wont bother reading anymore, it wont help me much." During that evening of my choise to read or not to read, to either go and chill with my friends or to read, I was quickly looking trough the remaining summaries. I felt strongly that God told me to read on "Macintyre & Ariostle" (I did not realize it then how key this subject was in Exphil), and I had a choise there and then to accept and read or go chill with my friends. Even though I felt it so strongly I ignored that and went chilling with my friends. I did have my prayers answered for God helping me, though I ignored it. So the day came, and I asked my friends to pray for me even though I ignored the key subject. And I went to take the exam. I sat down, and when I got the questions, there it was; Aristotle & Macintyre question about virtue. I knew some facts about Aristotle but I totally had ignored Macintyre, I had no clue who he was. And this was an ethics question about their view and stuff. And all I could write down was minimal of some facts about Aristotle & Plato on this Part 1 of the test which had nearly anything to do with the question in hand. Part two I did answer very well, though it's part 1 that is the most important one, where I had to have answered at least four written pages to pass (I wrote two pages, full of out of the point facts and nearly nothing about the question, trying to pass) Also I had to pass to get scholarship for this school (and I was in mid semester, and pretty much without money) And I had prayed so much during that exam, and before, and people for me. And I got for the main part questions that I was not prepared for, and still after 6 weeks of waiting for the results I PASSED!
I know it sound like luck or whatever. But all these things line up for a greater purpose and Gods grace for a person who seeks him for help, even though I fail to work harder (And I'm not saying that its ok not to work hard) Desipte that, I saw how God was trying to lead me trough it, and he did.
Also during this semester, I was very short on money, and I prayed God to help me out. My mum usually doesn't give me money out of thin air (because we are quite poor) and I had not explained my economic situation to her in fully. Though day after my simple devoted prayer to God, my mum sends me what I need without even me having to ask her. All the other times I have gotten money from her, I have borrowed it! This time she said that I can have it for free (about 500€)
My cousin experienced once to dream the whole exam day the night before the exam with all the exam result. So all he did, was he went to the exam, and wrote down what he had dreamt, resulting in a very top grade. You don't think God listens to prayers?
There are endless of stories like this among devoted Christians all over the world.
claim that he is an omniscient observer meaning that the future is already determined, yet think they have to pray in order to fulfill his will although this cannot possibly change anything and I am not allowed to make fun of that?
this is as far as i got and I'd like to clarify something. the future is not predetermined, God has a predetermined path that he wants all of us to follow, but we as humans having our own free agency can choose not to follow that path.
the reason we pray is to keep in check to see if we are following that path
On November 15 2012 20:44 ThePhan2m wrote: I'll share my exam experience as a Christian, praying to God:
So, about 2 years ago I was reading for an Exphil exam. I had been preparing for quite some time, though had not read trough the whole curriculum cause I found some parts quite hard and boring, and I'm quite lazy and get easily distracted. Anyway, The exam consists of 2 parts. Part 1, chose between two questions with an longer answer. Part 2, chose 3 out of 5 smaller questions. Both parts has to be passed in order to pass the exam. During the day before the exam I was reading in the evening, and thought to myself "I probably wont get this on the exam, It wont help anything if I read this. I wont bother reading anymore, it wont help me much." During that evening of my choise to read or not to read, to either go and chill with my friends or to read, I was quickly looking trough the remaining summaries. I felt strongly that God told me to read on "Macintyre & Ariostle" (I did not realize it then how key this subject was in Exphil), and I had a choise there and then to accept and read or go chill with my friends. Even though I felt it so strongly I ignored that and went chilling with my friends. I did have my prayers answered for God helping me, though I ignored it. So the day came, and I asked my friends to pray for me even though I ignored the key subject. And I went to take the exam. I sat down, and when I got the questions, there it was; Aristotle & Macintyre question about virtue. I knew some facts about Aristotle but I totally had ignored Macintyre, I had no clue who he was. And this was an ethics question about their view and stuff. And all I could write down was minimal of some facts about Aristotle & Plato on this Part 1 of the test which had nearly anything to do with the question in hand. Part two I did answer very well, though it's part 1 that is the most important one, where I had to have answered at least four written pages to pass (I wrote two pages, full of out of the point facts and nearly nothing about the question, trying to pass) Also I had to pass to get scholarship for this school (and I was in mid semester, and pretty much without money) And I had prayed so much during that exam, and before, and people for me. And I got for the main part questions that I was not prepared for, and still after 6 weeks of waiting for the results I PASSED!
I know it sound like luck or whatever. But all these things line up for a greater purpose and Gods grace for a person who seeks him for help, even though I fail to work harder (And I'm not saying that its ok not to work hard) Desipte that, I saw how God was trying to lead me trough it, and he did.
Also during this semester, I was very short on money, and I prayed God to help me out. My mum usually doesn't give me money out of thin air (because we are quite poor) and I had not explained my economic situation to her in fully. Though day after my simple devoted prayer to God, my mum sends me what I need without even me having to ask her. All the other times I have gotten money from her, I have borrowed it! This time she said that I can have it for free (about 500€)
My cousin experienced once to dream the whole exam day the night before the exam with all the exam result. So all he did, was he went to the exam, and wrote down what he had dreamt, resulting in a very top grade. You don't think God listens to prayers?
There are endless of stories like this among devoted Christians all over the world.
Yes, because: Your line of thought is completely irrational.
I once saw an eagle, then found some money. Are you saying when you see an eagle you don't get money?
This is what it comes down to really. You ignore all the instances where it doesn't happen and remember the ones that fall neatly into your world view: Confirmation bias.
On November 15 2012 20:44 ThePhan2m wrote: I'll share my exam experience as a Christian, praying to God:
So, about 2 years ago I was reading for an Exphil exam. I had been preparing for quite some time, though had not read trough the whole curriculum cause I found some parts quite hard and boring, and I'm quite lazy and get easily distracted. Anyway, The exam consists of 2 parts. Part 1, chose between two questions with an longer answer. Part 2, chose 3 out of 5 smaller questions. Both parts has to be passed in order to pass the exam. During the day before the exam I was reading in the evening, and thought to myself "I probably wont get this on the exam, It wont help anything if I read this. I wont bother reading anymore, it wont help me much." During that evening of my choise to read or not to read, to either go and chill with my friends or to read, I was quickly looking trough the remaining summaries. I felt strongly that God told me to read on "Macintyre & Ariostle" (I did not realize it then how key this subject was in Exphil), and I had a choise there and then to accept and read or go chill with my friends. Even though I felt it so strongly I ignored that and went chilling with my friends. I did have my prayers answered for God helping me, though I ignored it. So the day came, and I asked my friends to pray for me even though I ignored the key subject. And I went to take the exam. I sat down, and when I got the questions, there it was; Aristotle & Macintyre question about virtue. I knew some facts about Aristotle but I totally had ignored Macintyre, I had no clue who he was. And this was an ethics question about their view and stuff. And all I could write down was minimal of some facts about Aristotle & Plato on this Part 1 of the test which had nearly anything to do with the question in hand. Part two I did answer very well, though it's part 1 that is the most important one, where I had to have answered at least four written pages to pass (I wrote two pages, full of out of the point facts and nearly nothing about the question, trying to pass) Also I had to pass to get scholarship for this school (and I was in mid semester, and pretty much without money) And I had prayed so much during that exam, and before, and people for me. And I got for the main part questions that I was not prepared for, and still after 6 weeks of waiting for the results I PASSED!
I know it sound like luck or whatever. But all these things line up for a greater purpose and Gods grace for a person who seeks him for help, even though I fail to work harder (And I'm not saying that its ok not to work hard) Desipte that, I saw how God was trying to lead me trough it, and he did.
Also during this semester, I was very short on money, and I prayed God to help me out. My mum usually doesn't give me money out of thin air (because we are quite poor) and I had not explained my economic situation to her in fully. Though day after my simple devoted prayer to God, my mum sends me what I need without even me having to ask her. All the other times I have gotten money from her, I have borrowed it! This time she said that I can have it for free (about 500€)
My cousin experienced once to dream the whole exam day the night before the exam with all the exam result. So all he did, was he went to the exam, and wrote down what he had dreamt, resulting in a very top grade. You don't think God listens to prayers?
There are endless of stories like this among devoted Christians all over the world.
Thank you for sharing your experience. What I wanted to make clear from my OP: I totally accept that you see this as a sign of God and that it reassures you that you are on the right path and your praying does good to you and people you care about. However you must allow me - as an agnostic - to think differently. For me your beliefs are the same as the believes of little children, like believing in Santa. For an outside observing atheist both believes seem equally naive as the kid's presents are actually bought by the parents and the prayer is answered by coincidence in conjunction with the confirmation bias.
I want to make one thing very clear: I would never personally go to a Christian and talk him/her out of believing. As long as your beliefs don't take control over my world, I'm fine with it. You may also teach Christianity as an (mostly historically) important part of your culture. But please don't teach kids in school what to believe. It's the wrong place.
I believe you are an agnostic atheist? Agnosticism has gotten the connotation that you think both possibilities are equally probable, however that's not what I inferred from you post.
On November 15 2012 05:13 OmniEulogy wrote: I've never thought about it much. I just think of Pascal and it's enough for me. I don't really lose sleep over it.
I don't know accurate this graph is, but it gets the point across.
If you wanted to get an edge against random, you could engage in comparative theology
edit: also really stupid because the heaven/hell payout schema is already mired in a particular theology, e.g. it's nonsense to talk about belief in Zeus w/r/t hell
On November 15 2012 05:13 OmniEulogy wrote: I've never thought about it much. I just think of Pascal and it's enough for me. I don't really lose sleep over it.
I don't know accurate this graph is, but it gets the point across.
Could all be one dude. Or... creator... or something.
I firmly believe that Jehovah and Allah are the same thing and Jews, Christians and Muslims are all praying to one person. Extending this to Horus or Zeus wouldn't be much of a stretch either.
But it does get the point across that's it's foolish to choose based on that. Learn about all the religions and find one that makes you happy, or don't have one at all. Or choose not to know or care. As long as you enjoy life and you're not a dick to other people, that's all you need in life
On November 15 2012 05:13 OmniEulogy wrote: I've never thought about it much. I just think of Pascal and it's enough for me. I don't really lose sleep over it.
I don't know accurate this graph is, but it gets the point across.
Christians and Muslims are all praying to one person.
Really depends on what kind of Christian you are. Lots of controversy over "persons"
On November 15 2012 05:13 OmniEulogy wrote: I've never thought about it much. I just think of Pascal and it's enough for me. I don't really lose sleep over it.
I don't know accurate this graph is, but it gets the point across.
Christians and Muslims are all praying to one person.
Really depends on what kind of Christian you are. Lots of controversy over "persons"
Well I mean Muslims believe that Jesus was a great guy and all but just wasn't the son of God. They actually tie all three together in ways and say "Yeah this is God, but you guys are doing it wrong." Christians do the same thing to Jews in a way.
If anything it's just the three arguing over which one is the "right" pathway to paradise.
On November 15 2012 05:13 OmniEulogy wrote: I've never thought about it much. I just think of Pascal and it's enough for me. I don't really lose sleep over it.
I don't know accurate this graph is, but it gets the point across.
Christians and Muslims are all praying to one person.
Really depends on what kind of Christian you are. Lots of controversy over "persons"
Well I mean Muslims believe that Jesus was a great guy and all but just wasn't the son of God. They actually tie all three together in ways and say "Yeah this is God, but you guys are doing it wrong." Christians do the same thing to Jews in a way.
No, I mean this is the whole problem of the trinity. One god/three persons and so on. I'm not expert on this but the details of this were a major source of controversy in the early middle ages and catholics, protestants, orthodox and so on have different doctrines on this as a result of this history (roman vs. byzantine and so on). So if you say Muslims and Christians worship the same person you are already miring yourself in theological difficulties
On November 15 2012 05:13 OmniEulogy wrote: I've never thought about it much. I just think of Pascal and it's enough for me. I don't really lose sleep over it.
I don't know accurate this graph is, but it gets the point across.
Christians and Muslims are all praying to one person.
Really depends on what kind of Christian you are. Lots of controversy over "persons"
Well I mean Muslims believe that Jesus was a great guy and all but just wasn't the son of God. They actually tie all three together in ways and say "Yeah this is God, but you guys are doing it wrong." Christians do the same thing to Jews in a way.
No, I mean this is the whole problem of the trinity. One god/three persons and so on. I'm not expert on this but the details of this were a major source of controversy in the early middle ages and catholics, protestants, orthodox and so on have different doctrines on this as a result of this history (roman vs. byzantine and so on). So if you say Muslims and Christians worship the same person you are already miring yourself in theological difficulties
It doesn't matter which god. Are you just trolling?
On November 16 2012 05:03 sam!zdat wrote: what do you mean "both possibilities"
God/no god.........
Yeah but which "God"
Also I don't really understand what the "no god" position would be. Can you elaborate? Like, what is logical form of the claim here?
On November 16 2012 05:46 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:
On November 16 2012 05:35 sam!zdat wrote:
On November 16 2012 05:33 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:
On November 16 2012 05:15 guN-viCe wrote:
On November 15 2012 05:13 OmniEulogy wrote: I've never thought about it much. I just think of Pascal and it's enough for me. I don't really lose sleep over it.
I don't know accurate this graph is, but it gets the point across.
Christians and Muslims are all praying to one person.
Really depends on what kind of Christian you are. Lots of controversy over "persons"
Well I mean Muslims believe that Jesus was a great guy and all but just wasn't the son of God. They actually tie all three together in ways and say "Yeah this is God, but you guys are doing it wrong." Christians do the same thing to Jews in a way.
No, I mean this is the whole problem of the trinity. One god/three persons and so on. I'm not expert on this but the details of this were a major source of controversy in the early middle ages and catholics, protestants, orthodox and so on have different doctrines on this as a result of this history (roman vs. byzantine and so on). So if you say Muslims and Christians worship the same person you are already miring yourself in theological difficulties
It doesn't matter which god. Are you just trolling?
No, absolutely not. I actually want you to try to submit a positive thesis describing the atheistic position.
edit: it is the sure sign of being mired in ideology when anyone who asks you to describe your position seems like a troll
On November 15 2012 05:13 OmniEulogy wrote: I've never thought about it much. I just think of Pascal and it's enough for me. I don't really lose sleep over it.
I don't know accurate this graph is, but it gets the point across.
Christians and Muslims are all praying to one person.
Really depends on what kind of Christian you are. Lots of controversy over "persons"
Well I mean Muslims believe that Jesus was a great guy and all but just wasn't the son of God. They actually tie all three together in ways and say "Yeah this is God, but you guys are doing it wrong." Christians do the same thing to Jews in a way.
No, I mean this is the whole problem of the trinity. One god/three persons and so on. I'm not expert on this but the details of this were a major source of controversy in the early middle ages and catholics, protestants, orthodox and so on have different doctrines on this as a result of this history (roman vs. byzantine and so on). So if you say Muslims and Christians worship the same person you are already miring yourself in theological difficulties
Could be a being in many forms or something. I don't even want to go down that road... I just use "person" because saying "God" too much is tiring.
Yeah, sure, but that's just my point. When you talk about these things you have to 1) be very careful about what concepts are already presupposed in your language and 2) refrain from thinking that just because there are a lot of unfortunate mythic-participatory religious folk with superstitious beliefs and a difficulty with confirmation bias doesn't mean that you, the Enlightened atheist with all yr rational thoughtz, have all the answers, because you don't.
edit: (this is less directed at you than the other guy who thinks he's so smart)
On November 16 2012 05:03 sam!zdat wrote: what do you mean "both possibilities"
God/no god.........
Yeah but which "God"
Also I don't really understand what the "no god" position would be. Can you elaborate? Like, what is logical form of the claim here?
On November 16 2012 05:46 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:
On November 16 2012 05:35 sam!zdat wrote:
On November 16 2012 05:33 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:
On November 16 2012 05:15 guN-viCe wrote:
On November 15 2012 05:13 OmniEulogy wrote: I've never thought about it much. I just think of Pascal and it's enough for me. I don't really lose sleep over it.
I don't know accurate this graph is, but it gets the point across.
Christians and Muslims are all praying to one person.
Really depends on what kind of Christian you are. Lots of controversy over "persons"
Well I mean Muslims believe that Jesus was a great guy and all but just wasn't the son of God. They actually tie all three together in ways and say "Yeah this is God, but you guys are doing it wrong." Christians do the same thing to Jews in a way.
No, I mean this is the whole problem of the trinity. One god/three persons and so on. I'm not expert on this but the details of this were a major source of controversy in the early middle ages and catholics, protestants, orthodox and so on have different doctrines on this as a result of this history (roman vs. byzantine and so on). So if you say Muslims and Christians worship the same person you are already miring yourself in theological difficulties
It doesn't matter which god. Are you just trolling?
No, absolutely not. I actually want you to try to submit a positive thesis describing the atheistic position.
edit: it is the sure sign of being mired in ideology when anyone who asks you to describe your position seems like a troll
I just assumed you were knowledgeable enough to know what the Atheistic, Agnostic and Theistic positions were. I understand where you are coming from, but I'm not making a philosophical theory and having to define everything would be tiring, especially if other people have already done so.
have all the answers, because you don't.
Where have I ever taken the position that I have all the answers. Great strawman you have going on there.
On November 16 2012 06:42 sam!zdat wrote: How can I have anything other than a strawman when you won't tell me what you think?
What does it mean to say "there is no god"
I legitimately, seriously, cannot parse this claim.
edit: and when you say things like "it doesn't matter which god" it's hardly fair to accuse someone else of failing to appreciate one's position
I'm not an Atheist, you tell me, here wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism. Assuming each others positions will get us nowhere, the same way arguing semantics will get us nowhere.
On November 16 2012 06:51 sam!zdat wrote: ugh, the "semantics" thing again
Ok. All I really ask is that you be nicer when you denounce people with their (admittedly naive) religious beliefs
edit: but maybe I misunderstand your tone, if so, sorry and continue on your way
You started the semantics thing by saying
What does it mean to say "there is no god"
I mean, we could try it in programming language or something and assign values to the believe in god and believe in no god or something but I doubt that would get us any further.
On November 15 2012 05:13 OmniEulogy wrote: I've never thought about it much. I just think of Pascal and it's enough for me. I don't really lose sleep over it.
I don't know accurate this graph is, but it gets the point across.
Christians and Muslims are all praying to one person.
Really depends on what kind of Christian you are. Lots of controversy over "persons"
Well I mean Muslims believe that Jesus was a great guy and all but just wasn't the son of God. They actually tie all three together in ways and say "Yeah this is God, but you guys are doing it wrong." Christians do the same thing to Jews in a way.
If anything it's just the three arguing over which one is the "right" pathway to paradise.
The differences between Judaism/Christianity/Islam are actually very profound, both in how scripture is interpreted (or even what is and is not scripture) and on a metaphysical level.
The trinity for example is deeply heretical to any muslim, because in Islam the singularity of god is of the highest importance. Saying that Jesus was God, made manifest on earth, is pure heresy.
The three claim the same foundation, and each claims to improve on the other, or deny the follower, but each reads and re-interprets what came before in drastically different ways.
Muslims often claim that they aren't that different from Christianity, after all, Jesus is a prophet to them too, but it only shows a profound lack of knowledge.
Not only is the Arab name for Jesus different, but even his life and actions are very different. If you believe that Jesus dying on the cross is optional, or negotiable, then you don't know Christianity.
So when a muslim says that he believes in Christ the prophet, and thus is close to Christianity, he forgets to mention that in Islam, Jesus never died on the cross, and wasn't an incarnation of God.
In Christianity, Jesus dying on the cross for the sins of mankind is of the same crucial importance as Muhammed being God's prophet.
Now, being an atheist I can feel easy that none of it is remotely true in the first place, but I get antsy when, most often the religious, try to blur the lines between the Abrahamic religions, and argue that they are very similar.
They aren't. Not in their rules, not in their claims, and not even on their metaphysical levels. The figure of God is technically the same for each three major branches, but each perceives him drastically different.
On November 16 2012 04:59 Recognizable wrote: I believe you are an agnostic atheist? Agnosticism has gotten the connotation that you think both possibilities are equally probable, however that's not what I inferred from you post.
No it hassn't. Agnosticism in this case is just the view claiming that this God/no God thing is unknowable. As Wikipedia puts it: "an agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of a deity or deities, whereas a theist and an atheist believe and disbelieve." However, since I don't have any indications for there being a God, I tend to think the "no God" possibility is in principle more probable. Would you wanna call that "agnostic atheist"?
On November 16 2012 06:29 sam!zdat wrote: Yeah, sure, but that's just my point. When you talk about these things you have to 1) be very careful about what concepts are already presupposed in your language and 2) refrain from thinking that just because there are a lot of unfortunate mythic-participatory religious folk with superstitious beliefs and a difficulty with confirmation bias doesn't mean that you, the Enlightened atheist with all yr rational thoughtz, have all the answers, because you don't.
edit: (this is less directed at you than the other guy who thinks he's so smart)
I'm actually a Christian. Or was that last bit the part you were referencing in your edit?
EDIT: But when you say they try to assume they are a "betterment" of each other, there is the unity. Hell, you can cherrypick parts from all three if you believe that's how it is. The three all see the same God but explain Him differently. The rest in my eyes is semantics by comparison.
I mean, we could try it in programming language or something and assign values to the believe in god and believe in no god or something but I doubt that would get us any further.
No, the "semantics thing" is people dismissing things by calling them "semantics." "semantics" is the study of meaning. When you talk about what things mean, you are talking about semantics. There is nothing more important and useful than arguing about semantics.
I don't see how a "programming language" would be any help at all. Do you take statements expressed in "programming language" to be more true in some way than statements expressed in natural language? (leaving out the fact that programming "languages" only have one mood, the imperative, and can't really make statements at all, but that's another topic)
But since you don't want to defend atheism I won't press you to define the claim.
On November 16 2012 04:59 Recognizable wrote: I believe you are an agnostic atheist? Agnosticism has gotten the connotation that you think both possibilities are equally probable, however that's not what I inferred from you post.
No it hassn't. Agnosticism in this case is just the view claiming that this God/no God thing is unknowable. As Wikipedia puts it: "an agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of a deity or deities, whereas a theist and an atheist believe and disbelieve." However, since I don't have any indications for there being a God, I tend to think the "no God" possibility is in principle more probable. Would you wanna call that "agnostic atheist"?
I know. That's why I said "Agnosticism has gotten the connotation" An Agnostic Atheist is one who believes he can't be for sure there is no god, the same way he can't be for sure there is no "insert something where there is no evidence of, for example: ghosts" That's why many Agnostics call themselves Atheists, because in the public eye they are seen as Atheists, although strictly they are Agnostic. To solve this "problem" terms like Agnostic Theist and Agnostic Atheist were introduced.
No, the "semantics thing" is people dismissing things by calling them "semantics." "semantics" is the study of meaning. When you talk about what things mean, you are talking about semantics. There is nothing more important and useful than arguing about semantics.
How do you define what the meaning of a word is? It's impossible to do through means of other words because those words would have to be defined, which would create an infinite regress and results in circular logic. I wonder how this works in math/logic as well. I would assume that at some point you just have to take something as truth.
Semantics is most often described in natural language. This works because you never talk about the general meaning of a word but a phrase within it's use and utterance. There is no way to derive the meaning of a word or phrase without contex. That's why AIs have a hard time dealing with semantics. In some discussions semantics is used as truth-value semantics and mostly expressed in predicate logic.
If you are interested in this, don't hesitate to PN me. I made some easily understandable presentations about that during my studies which I can share with you.
No, the "semantics thing" is people dismissing things by calling them "semantics." "semantics" is the study of meaning. When you talk about what things mean, you are talking about semantics. There is nothing more important and useful than arguing about semantics.
How do you define what the meaning of a word is? It's impossible to do through means of other words because those words would have to be defined, which would create an infinite regress and results in circular logic. I wonder how this works in math/logic as well. I would assume that at some point you just have to take something as truth.
Yeah, it's a hard problem. This is a big part of what literary theory is about.
The way it works in logic (and math is built on logic) is that you take certain things as axiomatic and then go from there. There is no bedrock foundation upon which you can construct your edifice.
The dominant (postmodern) view is that this presents an insurmountable obstacle to the possibility of "true" communication in language. I'm something of a heretic.
(edit: keep in mind that there are two separate problems: the formal consistency of a system, and the problem of reference to the world)
edit:
On November 16 2012 18:34 Cyberonic wrote: I guess he wanted to use programming language to make the statements unambiguous and clearer. Optimal would be predicate or modal logic I suppose.
All formal logical systems have their limitations.
You cannot prove the consistency of a system from within the system. (second incompleteness theorem)
It's trivial to see why.
An inconsistent statement implies all possible q (that is, the statement "if p and not-p, then q" is a tautology - it is true for all possible p and all possible q). Therefore, an inconsistent system includes a proof of its own consistency. So if you were to discover a proof of the consistency of some system within that system, that wouldn't tell you anything, because both consistent and inconsistent systems produce proofs of their own consistency.
That's true sam!zdat. Let me add this: Most semantic debates are fought in natural language because they are about really specific items, for example what "the King of Scotland" refers to, so that it's easy to settle on truths outside of the matter of interest. If this is not satisfying you have to switch to formal semantics which is expressed in mathematical logic. The most prominent approach is the lambda calculus whose terms also rely on three basic axoms.
An arbitrary lambda term might look like this: λ.x(λyλz)
hmm, yes, I don't think you'll get anywhere with that.
I rather think, instead, that when formal semantics is not satisfying one must switch to informal semantics
the main lesson I learned from studying computation theory was that all the really interesting problems are not computable! Although an understanding of computation/complexity and so on is indispensable for anybody who wants to call themselves philosopher nowadays
EPT
![[image loading]](http://www.godlessbastard.com/wp-content/uploads/GB-5659-Pascals-Wager-Matrix.jpg)
